(HC)Hossain

Imran Hossain v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 3, 20251:25-cv-01710California421 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 IMRAN HOSSAIN, Case No. 1:25-cv-01710-JLT-SAB-HC

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

13 v. COUNSEL

14 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE (ECF No. 3) ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 20 Petitioner has moved for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3.) There currently exists no 21 absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 22 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). 23 However, the Criminal Justice Act authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the 24 proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 25 3006A(a)(2)(B). To determine whether to appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the 26 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.